Blaming the victims of terrorists

Everyone has a reason to lash out -- except Americans

Published on May 20, 2004 By Draginol In Current Events

I wrote an article the other day that asked a pretty straight forward question: What do you think the US response would be if terrorists smuggled in a nuclear weapon into New York and set it off killing tens of thousands of people.

The responses were quite surprising. Hardly anyone actually answered the question. I was interested in hearing various response scenarios. Instead, the comments area got filled with people preemptively blaming the whole thing on the United States. Apparently, in the eyes of some people, there is no deed too terrible that the US doesn't deserve it.

You can almost imagine the kind of thinking that resulted in the holocaust. The holocaust in Europe occurred because the general population in the areas it took place in did nothing to prevent it. More recent historians have made the case that the general population had slowly concluded that "the jews" had it coming. That this was all retribution for a whole host of perceived injustices.

In the mind of some, for instance, various vague acts by the United States serve as ample justification for the wholesale murder of Americans by Islamic terrorists. When I asked what those acts were in another article, the answers included "The Bay of pigs invasion, Interference in Chile, support of Israel". Ah, yes, I can see the connection between Cuba and Islamic terrorists flying air planes into the WTC in an effort to murder as many Americans at once as possible.

Psychologically, this holocaust-like mentality is pretty easy to demonstrate. If you reverse the scenario, the US still remains the bad guy. For example, if the US response after 9/11 was the wholesale destruction of Islam, the US remains the bad guy. None of them say "Well, they deserved their destruction!" When Americans die wholesale, they say "Ask yourselves why they hate you" If the US retaliates for a very specific murderous act in kind, they don't say to the targets of this wrath "Ask yourselves why they hate you." No matter what the scenario is, the US is the bad guy.

If you hate something enough, you can justify any heinous act. Those who hate the United States are able to justify virtually any horrific act done to Americans. Yet, without a trace of irony, can turn around and passionately argue how wrong it would be to respond in kind. Americans, in their view, just need to accept that they're part of an evil nation and suck it down until Karmic retribution has been completed.

Which is, of course, absurd and contrary to human nature. If someone comes up to you and pops you in the nose and kicks you in the groin, your first reaction is not going to be to think about why you deserved it. Similarly, one is not going to look fondly at someone claiming to be your friend who explains that you really deserve to get beat up by this guy because you slighted him indirectly in some unintentional way long ago. In the real world, if someone comes up and physically assaults you, you're likely going to have to fight back.

I suspect some people would find it absurd if I wrote "Perhaps those abused POWs in Iraq need to ask - why did their guards hate them?" Because that's how absurd most Americans find the suggestion that 9/11 or some hypothetical future nuclear terrorist attack was our fault.

Comments (Page 3)

bakerstreet

on May 21, 2004

kingbee: i think you should consider that terrorists, as non-military citizens ARE civilians. Also consider the fact that women and young people have been suicide bombers, and that sick radicals in the Middle East tend to hide among and shield themselves with innocents. When we target Osama bin Laden, we are targeting a civilian. The citizens of the Middle East make the ability to differentiate very, very difficult with their behavior and support for terrorism.

Re: Kupe:

The world should also consider the fact that an autonomous, self governing Middle East was an American idea, and one of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points. France and the rest of Imperial Europe did not want to relinquish what they thought were resources to be abused. Modern Iraq, and the modern Middle East as a whole, is a product of European greed, but again, the US is an easy target, and Europe has a great deal more control on their press. Therefore there is no TotalFinaElf scandal, no questions as to why a genocidal maniac was paid for his services right up until the most recent invasion, and Halliburton is far more well known.

Nothing has changed. France, Germany and the rest were happy exploiting Saddam Hussein's regime, and were willing to tolerate his evil to make cash from it, and even Americans are easily diverted from the true origins of the Middle East by liars. Those same powers that abused the Middle East historically are angered because they have lost their grip, and are poised to do whatever they can to get it back the moment the US leaves.

eieio

on May 21, 2004

I'm going to suggest a parallel scenario here to see if the reaction is similar to the Islamic terrorists acts.

Suppose the KKK, a group in America but not affiliated or sanctioned by the Government, started setting off bombs in various African countries with the specific purpose of killing civilians in order to try to impose their religous and moral views on the world. Like the Islamic terrorists, they aren't specific to any country and feel justified in their beliefs.

Would the reaction from the world be the same? Would some people say it is the African's fault for selling slaves to slave traders where they eventually wound up in America, thereby causing the KKK'ers to feel threatened? Would the US Government be blamed, even though it had nothing to do with the attacks? Would the UN pass a resolution condemning the US for the acts of one of it's radical groups? Would the US and it's press take a stance for the terrorists or against?

Hmm ...

Madine

on May 21, 2004

My entire argument hinges on the fact that the US needs to look at its interventionalist policies. Your entire argument hangs by the thread that US is the greatest, and should not be violated in any way, shape or form... if it is, the perps. must be fanatical lunatics who just enjoy death... Not once have you attempted to ask why it happens, you just know it happens to your people, and you are justifiably aggreived, just as anyone from the Middle East has the right to be aggreived at anyone that violates their culture.You have written all terrorism of as crazy acts of fanatascism, which most generally are... I ask why these people are driven to fanatascism, you say because they are fanatics they must be destroyed.

Mass murder is not the moral equivalent of "violating their culture". What exactly does violating their culture mean?

I think that the major causes of "Islamic" terrorism are:
--Most Arab leaders prefer their citizens to be angry at Americans and Jews than angry about their leaders
--The belief that dying while murdering others leads to heavenly blessing.
--The suppression of voices and ideas that do not conform to an Islamic point of view.

greywar

on May 21, 2004

Suppose the KKK, a group in America but not affiliated or sanctioned by the Government, started setting off bombs in various African countries with the specific purpose of killing civilians in order to try to impose their religous and moral views on the world. Like the Islamic terrorists, they aren't specific to any country and feel justified in their beliefs.

My reaction to them would be the same. Here is the major diffeence though. This scenario does not happen. This is my point, America controls its extremist groups. We do not hide behind the tired old "silent majority" defense.

bakerstreet

on May 21, 2004

"Suppose the KKK, a group in America but not affiliated or sanctioned by the Government, started setting off bombs in various African countries with the specific purpose of killing civilians in order to try to impose their religious and moral views on the world. Like the Islamic terrorists, they aren't specific to any country and feel justified in their beliefs."

Actually isn't' the KKK specific to the US? Anyone aware of a KKK crime or even protest outside the US? Need to read up on it, but to my knowledge the only violence they have perpetrated has been domestic.

I think our reaction would be to lay waste to the organization, cooperate with the other nation, and do whatever is needed. The powers that be here have nothing in common with the KKK and they don't support their agenda, not even in secret.

Islamic nations, on the other hand, support the agenda of Hamas, Hizbullah or many of the other terrorist organizations. We can't get them to designate them as terrorists, they are allowed to operate storefront operations, recruit members, and solicit donations, often from the people who govern.

So the comparison doesn't hold up. There isn't a violent organization in the US that hasn't been harassed by the ATF or other government agencies. Look at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the constant badgering that extremist groups have to tolerate in the US. Far from the support terrorists get in the Middle East.

eieio

on May 21, 2004

"America controls its extremist groups"

"There isn't a violent organization in the US that hasn't been harassed by the ATF or other government agencies. Look at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the constant badgering that extremist groups have to tolerate in the US. Far from the support terrorists get in the Middle East."

Both very valid points. I agree that, while groups such as these exist in the US, they are at best tolerated due to the freedom in America, but not condoned and especially not supported. Very different than what goes on in Arab countries re the Islamic terrorists.

But to the point I was trying to make.

What I'd really like to see is the opinion of those that feel the US is to blame or somehow brought this on themselves, as applied to this scenario. Would they still blame the victim(African nations)? Would we have the worldwide disdain (at least according to the media) for the victims if they struck back at the KKK?

My sense is their opinion would be more in line with Draginol's (as is mine). Blaming the victim, or somehow holding the victim accountable wouldn't hold true if the victim wasn't the US, even if there was supposed harm done by the victim toward the attacker. My guess is the feeling of "We have got to get the KKK and stop them before they commit any more atrocities on these innocent people" would be pretty much worldwide.

I think there is a certain built in bias toward the US that denies them the victim status that is usually felt toward someone who is viciously attacked. This bias seems to be based on certain things that the US has done, as was noted earlier.

I find it somewhat ironic that the people who feel the US 'had it coming' are usually the ones that profess to have an aversion to violence and see no circumstance where it is an acceptable alternative. Somehow, though, they feel it is justified in cases where the US is involved.

skooterz

on May 22, 2004

i think truman had it right... you drop the bomb first... the terrorists are scared or dead... the civilized world knows your crazy enough to do it and leaves you alone and becomes your best friend...

kingbee

on May 22, 2004

the residents of cherokee county, nc were deprived of a valuable and instructive lesson regarding the consequences of association by proximity with a terrorist who bombs an olympic venue during games hosted in the us, kills three people including a police officer , injures dozens of others and destroys several buildings before disappearing into the scenery for 5 years of 'living off the land' .

bakerstreet

on May 22, 2004

"the residents of cherokee county, nc were deprived of a valuable and instructive lesson regarding the consequences of association by proximity with a terrorist who bombs an olympic venue during games hosted in the us, kills three people including a police officer , injures dozens of others and destroys several buildings before disappearing into the scenery for 5 years of 'living off the land' ."

To me there is a difference between and individual commiting a crime like that and an organized, store-front, government sponsered organization commiting acts over national borders. Granted, the bomber in question may have had help, but the police have to determine if he did or not, and then prove it. Terrorist organizations take credit for their crimes, and function in broad daylight simply using international borders as a shield.

If Canada allowed the man in question to solicit funds and set up headquarters, and once a month he sent someone in to bomb the US with the Canadian government protecting him, your analogy would be more apt. It isn't a matter of "proximity". Terrorist leaders in the Middle East are supported by the public, well paid, and offered legitimate status by their governments. That goes way beyond "wrong place at the wrong time".

Muggaz

on May 22, 2004

In the 1930's, post World War I and at the beginnig of the Great Depression, the United States accepted a policy of non-intervention. US troops were withdrawn from Nicaruaga and other countries in South America where we had previously intervened under the Monroe Doctrine. Great Britain, under the leadership of Neville Chamberlain, also took the stance of non-intervention. It seemed perfectly reasonable. After all, if Spain wanted to be ruled by Franco, well that was their business, right? And events in places like Czechoslovakia, which Germany had invaded, were far away, right? Neville Chamberlain said that non-intervention would assure "peace in our time." Please see http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36.htm

Neville Chamberlain was well-intentioned and well spoken. Many would agree with his sentiments today. The problem was that allowing dictators to rule in Germany, Italy (Chamberlain even praised Mussolini for his help in securing a treaty,) Spain and elsewhere was that non-interventionism set the stage for World War II.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana.

It was only a matter of time until someone brought up the past.

Can I really say a big thank-you for the US's decision to intervene in cases like the World Wars etc.

Call me naive, but it's the cycle of life, countries will be ruled by dictators, but the people will rise up - it is the way of the world. We can help the people, but that doesn't necessarily mean guns...

BAM!!!

Draginol

on May 22, 2004

History has shown that the people rarely rise up. Nazism wasn't defeated from within. It was defeated from without. Revolution, particularly today, is difficult -- particularly against ruthless dictators.

greywar

on May 22, 2004

but that doesn't necessarily mean guns...

Usually it does mean guns. Dictators tend squash folks who just politely ask if they would please leave the country. Ask Idi Amin how he felt about peaceful revolt.

Ithaycu

on May 22, 2004

The response is quite easily formulated, find the perpetrator or protector of said perpetrator, and kill them. If that requires large thermonuclear weapons then so be it. As one posted noted before the golden rule is not just a one way relationship. If someone attacks me then obviously that's what they desire. It is no wonder that cultures of shame produce young men and women willing to give there lives in a futile attempt at legitimacy. I believe this is a consequence of the losses experienced by Islam, mostly recently in there string of losses to Israal.
Make no mistake there exsists a holy war between Judeo-Chrisitanity and Islam that has recently exsisted since the time of Muhammad and the early days of Islam. A cursory examination of Western civilizations history would reveal this truth. Islam grew out of the Arabian pennisula and had absoulutely nothing to do with the Holy Land (all land west of the Jordan river), but you can never count on a seditious individuals the responsibilty of knowing history.

greywar

on May 22, 2004

If that requires large thermonuclear weapons then so be it.

Too much collateral damage involved withthese for my tastes. Your mileage may vary.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!